warmetalfandomcom-20200214-history
Forum:Corrupted Force 4
I'm looking for help with figuring out a redundancy: Darkblood posted a great series of decks for farming CF4 and proved that it is arguably the best Gold+XP farming mission per Energy in the current game (pre-Purity). I had updated Corrupted Forces with the work done by Darkblood (re-tested the deck variations myself) before I saw this page (used the Kongregate forum post by Darkblood). With the exception of the Toxic Cannon deck, we're looking at redundancy, I'm just not sure what would be the best way to proceed. A thought was updating this page to the formatting used in "sample decks" on the actual Corrupted Forces page, including the toxic cannon deck (with test results table) and then replacing the content in "sample decks" with this page (transcluded). Slivicon 15:43, September 25, 2011 (UTC) I would post one or two effective decks. (one with no cost limitation and one that is releative usable by all players. Then provide a like with "more deck ideas here". I was thinking about cleaning up the deck building section a bit, but I haven't worked out all the details in my head. The main page should only show {per deck) one or two decks and the statistics for them, while providing a link that contributers can go crazy uploading decks to test. I also think the spam deck is a bit out of control. We don't need everyone putting up their favorite card as a spammable deck. The page was birthed from Hatchet and Trident spam being very popular and effective a long time ago. II may go through and edit those pages soon. If you want to run statistics and help on this endeaver that would be great. Shadowmaru 18:07, September 25, 2011 (UTC) OK, well I was the first to start putting in the test results tables with the simulator test results which included a link to the program, what version and the parameters (better "proof" imho than simply stating "95% win rate"). I didn't remove any decks from anywhere, because I didn't feel I've been here long enough to make such a bold decision. If there are going to be standards put in place for this, I'd recommend: *Clearly define what makes a deck have "no cost limitation". Does this mean only mission and achievement reward cards (none that require purchase from packs or as raid rewards)? I think some missions/raids simply can't be done with any respectable degree of efficiency with that limit. Does it mean any cards except those that are available exclusively through War Bonds? (no blight/nexus pack cards)? Without a clear definition, different people will have different opinions. *If only a certain amount of decks are going to be allowed on a mission/raid page, how many auto and how many manual? Auto is easy to test with a simulator. Manual I test as well, just with the table caption disclaimer that tests are auto mode only. Nobody has attempted designing a program that can test strategy and decision-making. *How do we determine when to replace a deck with a superior deck? Again, auto is easy, but manual is harder to determine. Perhaps a list of criteria that the editors can use to determine justification for replacing a manual deck with a better deck? *Rather than deleting decks, should they be moved to a new page (per mission/raid) where they can be considered "additional decks"? What kind of naming standard should the pages follow, something like ORIGINAL_PAGE_NAME_Decks? Slivicon 18:45, September 25, 2011 (UTC) By cost I meant warbonds. If it's promo, Nexus or Blight heavy I consider it to be an advanced deck. I would also consider Azure Reaper spam a high cost deck because (150,000 is pretty steep.) I've always tried to keep beginners and casuals in mind when I write strategy, but with the inclusion of the Purity expansion and the community (in general) all being past Blight this minority stance isn't really working out well. If its a manual deck I either play test it a few times, or if its from a credible source I just accept that it is effective. I assumed number crunching only happened for auto decks. Inaccuracies will happen for manual decks. I just want to keep the graphics on strategy pages to a minimum (I find the spam page to horrendeous, but thats just my opinion.) It was getting to a point that every contributer wanted to post their deck, and we don't need that many. As for deleting decks, some pages were untouched since I last edited them as a beginner in March. Thats the kind of outdated deck I was meaning. (Or if reward cards are a better choice.) I tried to move old decks/multiple idea decks to the talk page of the section. I'm not sure if it will catch on. New editors rarely look around for our acceptable standards anyway, so I'm not expecting much in that area. (Sorry it took so long to reply, I don't get notifications for forum posts.) Shadowmaru 19:04, September 29, 2011 (UTC)